Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Hate Crime Statutes: Arbitration Expense and Fee Award Reversed And Remanded Because Armendariz Prohibition on Expenses Applies To Statutory Hate Crime Claims

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division One, Does Remand For Proper Expense/Fee Determination and For Examination of Allocation Issues.      Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare, 24 Cal.4th 83, 110-113 (2000) determined that arbitral expenses beyond what a plaintiff litigant would have borne in a court case cannot be imposed in cases involving statutory rights enacted for a public […]

Elder Abuse: Senate Bill 1140, Effective January 1, 2009, Strengthens Elder Abuse Protections And Has Fee-Shifting Impetus

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Legislation

Effect of New Law Explored in Steven Riess’ Article in August 2009 California Lawyer.      For those attorney readers practicing in the elder abuse area, there is an excellent article that is must reading in the August 2009 edition of California Lawyer. It is authored by Steven Riess and is entitled “Combating Financial Abuse of

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Stung by District Court’s Denial of Fees, Appellant Gets Some Relief from Ninth Circuit in Mosquito Spraying Case

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Ninth Circuit Explains Standards for Collecting Fees under Clean Water Act.      The next case involves alphabet soup:  GCMAD, NPDES, EPA, CWA, and the spraying of adulticides.  Translation:  Gem County Mosquito Abatement District, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Water Act, and the spraying of pesticides used to kill adult mosquitoes.

Special-Fee Shifting Statute: $83,545 Attorney’s Fees Award Affirmed As Against Losing Employee And In Favor Of Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Summary Judgment Affirmed, and Fees Properly Awarded For Bringing Torts Claim Without Basis.      Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038, when a defendant in a case brought under the Torts Claim Act prevails on summary judgment, the defendant may obtain an award of attorney’s fees if the trial court determines the action was not

Special Fee-Shifting Statute In Taxpayer Dispute: Appellate Court Reverses $220,000 Fee Award In Taxpayer’s Favor As Against Franchise Tax Board

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Taxation

First District, Division 4 Determines FTB Was Substantially Justified in Defending Case.      In a lawsuit against the State of California (including the Franchise Tax Board) for a tax refund, a prevailing taxpayer may be awarded attorney’s fees unless the State of California “establishes that its position in the proceeding was substantially justified.” (Rev. &

FOIA: No Fees Recoverable Where Documents Voluntarily Turned Over Before 2007 Amendments

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Ninth Circuit Determines 2007 Catalyst Amendments Are Not Retroactive in Nature.      Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, a complainant in a FOIA action is deemed to be eligible for an award of attorney’s fees if he has “substantially prevailed” on his claim. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) (prior to 2007 amendments).

Labor Commissioner Appeals: Employer Wins $10,000 Fee Award Against Unsuccessful Ex-Employee

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fees Can Be Awarded Under Labor Code section 98.2(c).      An employer is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, in an amount to be determined by the trial court, when an employee unsuccessfully appeals from a Labor Commissioner’s ruling to the trial court. (Lab. Code sec. 98.2(c).) Cooper v. Golden Gate Reporters, LLC,

Special Fee Shifting Statute: California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Does Allow For Enhancement of Fee Awards Using Multipliers

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District, Division 1 Holds that Civil Code section 1788.30(c) Language Does Not Preclude Use of Multipliers.      Civil Code section 1788.30(c), part of the Robbins-Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, allows a prevailing debtor enforcing any liability under the Act to recover “reasonable attorney’s fees, which shall be based on time necessarily expended to

Scroll to Top